Italy court: Amanda Knox to be retried for Meredith Kercher

[Jub]

I'm not disagreeing that the US has a poor legal system. I'm just saying that I bet they (including politicians) think their system is better than Italy's.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh dearrrrrrrrr. You know this was an appeal process, right? They even have appeals in Nazi Germany I mean America. This is like the 'protection' we get when a rich criminal is released during appeals process and fucks off never to return.

In the US the appeals process doesn't let the courts go "you're innocent, no wait, let's try you all over again." I think that's a good thing, and I do think doing that would be double jeopardy.

If a court screws up and finds a reasonable doubt that you didn't do it, you shouldn't have to keep going through the courts over and over because the prosecutor keeps finding more reasons to undermine that doubt.

Except, that is not protection. That is yet another way US system is broken. Normally, in Europe, you can't be retried on whim either - there has to be some big circumstance that changed the whole case, otherwise judges will dismiss it out of hand. This is appeal case, which everyone can request. Prosecution loses this one? Then then basically gives up, unlike US one, which for career could very well prosecute again and again. That's why you need double jeopardy - to protect you from flawed, archaic system.

So what's the circumstance that changes the whole case here? The finding that maybe the appeals judges were wrong to say there was "improper weighting of evidence?" That suggests that the problem is that the first panel of judges was incompetent.

I would think it more appropriate that the obligation to have competent judges be on the state, not on the defendant.

I very much prefer system where serial killer can be retried and imprisoned if someone finds bloody knife with his fingerprints month after the trial, than one where said killer can shout "YES, IT WAS ME!" and play "You're all losers" on a trombone five seconds after being declared innocent by 12 random people grabbed off the street and get away with it, thank you very much

My opinions about double jeopardy are entirely separate from my opinions about jury trials.

If the 'jury' is a panel of professionals, and the case runs for years with a serious effort to gather all available evidence, when can we stop continuing or threaten to continue the trial? Can anyone really be declared innocent in a system where the state reserves the right to find new evidence and open the trial again years after the fact?

Wouldn't this act to create a larger (effective) stigma against accused criminals, whether they were guilty or not?

Actually I don't think this is how double jeopardy works. AFAIK in the US the judge has to on double jeopardy rather than it being automatically applied, so if you went "Ha ha fuckers I actually did it!" during a press conference, or the cops found a dungeon under your house or something, the DA would appeal, you'd get a retrial which would be allowed on that basis. Or something.

BTW Europe also has double jeopardy protection based on the European Convention on Human Rights.

The real question here, then, is whether this situation justifies the retrial.

"The judges who acquitted her were biased" really shouldn't, in my opinion. Because as I said, it is the state's responsibility to provide competent jurors, especially in a system that uses a panel of trained judges instead of a jury.

If the US really respects the laws of their partner nation of Italy, they should extradite her. Get her great counsel on state's dime, whatever. But extradition must happen.

As long as Italy is willing to extradite murderers to the US knowing they may be executed, and people accused of releasing state secrets knowing they may be stuck in solitary with the lights on awaiting trial for years, we can keep extraditing people to Italy knowing they can't actually be declared permanently innocent if the prosecutor wants to keep repeating the accusation at a higher court level.

At first glance, that is a fair point, but then again, the system not based on popularity is not the US one here.

When the case is based on a sensationalist, over-the-top story that Kercher was murdered in a satanic ritual by three people... it calls into question the court's resistance to populism. US juries have fallen for that quite a few times; professional jurors shouldn't. If professionals do, I think it undermines their claim to being reliable, rigid arbiters of truth.

[Stark]

In the US the appeals process doesn't let the courts go "you're innocent, no wait, let's try you all over again." I think that's a good thing, and I do think doing that would be double jeopardy.

If a court screws up and finds a reasonable doubt that you didn't do it, you shouldn't have to keep going through the courts over and over because the prosecutor keeps finding more reasons to undermine that doubt.

Oh man, Americans saying 'reasonable doubt' with respect to a not-American legal system. PS Italy doesn't use an adversarial system.

Are you saying that in America, the result of a trial cannot be appealed to a higher court and then overturned? Because you know what Simon, I have a hard time believing that. This isn't whatever caricature of non-America cretins imagine when they chuckle about the 'protection' of 'double jeopardy'; nobody is charging anyone with the same crime again or suddenly revealing new evidence that in America would be totally useless because your system was designed to suck. This is (apparently) a drawn-out appeals process giving a result that overturns a previous conviction. This wouldn't even be noteworthy if it wasn't for the media circus and parochial 'nobody tries Americans but AMERICA' filth.

I bet Colombia said the same thing about all those guys who fled during appeals in the 80s.

[Rogue 9]

In the US the appeals process doesn't let the courts go "you're innocent, no wait, let's try you all over again." I think that's a good thing, and I do think doing that would be double jeopardy.

If a court screws up and finds a reasonable doubt that you didn't do it, you shouldn't have to keep going through the courts over and over because the prosecutor keeps finding more reasons to undermine that doubt.

Oh man, Americans saying 'reasonable doubt' with respect to a not-American legal system. PS Italy doesn't use an adversarial system.

Are you saying that in America, the result of a trial cannot be appealed to a higher court and then overturned? Because you know what Simon, I have a hard time believing that. This isn't whatever caricature of non-America cretins imagine when they chuckle about the 'protection' of 'double jeopardy'; nobody is charging anyone with the same crime again or suddenly revealing new evidence that in America would be totally useless because your system was designed to suck. This is (apparently) a drawn-out appeals process giving a result that overturns a previous conviction. This wouldn't even be noteworthy if it wasn't for the media circus and parochial 'nobody tries Americans but AMERICA' filth.

I bet Colombia said the same thing about all those guys who fled during appeals in the 80s.

Then the first appeals court should have ordered a retrial instead of finding her not guilty. No, in the United States you cannot haul someone back before a court for a crime he has been found not guilty of as many times as you damn well please.

[Stark]

Good thing that isn't what's happening, then. Since when was 'how similar it is to America' an important metric for a justice system anyway?

AS MANY TIMES AS YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE

It's gold that this is honestly how allegedly intelligent people view the rest of the world.

[Terralthra]

The results of trials absolutely can be appealed and overturned. With very few exceptions, a "not guilty" verdict from a criminal trial can not be appealed, in the US. In Italy, it appears, as long as the prosecutor can come up with a new reason to appeal (such as a new piece of evidence), he/she can keep appealing and retrying the case until the Court of Cassation rules that the not guilty verdict stands.

[Stark]

Don't worry, the joke is still funny.

Putting aside America's myopia, I'm curious what the grounds for the decision was. As others have said the trial was a circus and the prosecution and police fucked up pretty bad; that they were given a retrial in this specific case is far more interesting than the ability to retry at all. But I respect the right of a country to have its own laws so I'm not American.

AS MANY TIMES AS YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE

Fucking Christ I'm going to be laughing all day.

[Thanas]

Yeah, wtf Rogue?

A not-guilty verdict is valid only for so long as no new evidence comes to light. If you are found innocent and a few weeks later police catch you with the body in the trunk, you better believe you will be hauled up on charges. And why not? Same if one side can show that the judges were incompetent or made mistakes. And again, why not?

Oh dearrrrrrrrr. You know this was an appeal process, right? They even have appeals in Nazi Germany I mean America. This is like the 'protection' we get when a rich criminal is released during appeals process and fucks off never to return.

In the US the appeals process doesn't let the courts go "you're innocent, no wait, let's try you all over again." I think that's a good thing, and I do think doing that would be double jeopardy.

Why shouldn't criminals be brought to justice?

So what's the circumstance that changes the whole case here? The finding that maybe the appeals judges were wrong to say there was "improper weighting of evidence?" That suggests that the problem is that the first panel of judges was incompetent.

No, it just means that the higher courts think the judgement calls they made were bad. And what is the big deal here in standing trial with what higher authorities deem to be the correct way to weigh evidence?

If the 'jury' is a panel of professionals, and the case runs for years with a serious effort to gather all available evidence, when can we stop continuing or threaten to continue the trial? Can anyone really be declared innocent in a system where the state reserves the right to find new evidence and open the trial again years after the fact?

Why should the state not have the right to reopen the trial when new evidence comes to light that you did it? After all, if new evidence comes to light that somebody is innocent, that evidence should be considered as well, yes?

"The judges who acquitted her were biased" really shouldn't, in my opinion. Because as I said, it is the state's responsibility to provide competent jurors, especially in a system that uses a panel of trained judges instead of a jury.

So if you get acquitted one time, nevermind the circumstances of that. Nope, free to go FOREVER AND EVER. Right.

As long as Italy is willing to extradite murderers to the US knowing they may be executed, and people accused of releasing state secrets knowing they may be stuck in solitary with the lights on awaiting trial for years, we can keep extraditing people to Italy knowing they can't actually be declared permanently innocent if the prosecutor wants to keep repeating the accusation at a higher court level.

You mean like the last time people were extradited to the US the guarantee was made that there was no death penalty on the table, then later on the US said "Whoops, fooled ya" and executed the guys anyway? Nope.

Also, good job on equating torture with the Italian appeals process. Really makes you look smart and reasonable here.

[Melchior]

I'd like to point out that there was an attempt to change how this works a few years ago - under the new rules there could be no new degree of judgement (there are generally three) after someone had been found not guilty. It was a transparent attempt sponsored by Mr. Berlusconi in order to further avoid facing justice and luckily it didn't come to pass.

Then the first appeals court should have ordered a retrial instead of finding her not guilty. No, in the United States you cannot haul someone back before a court for a crime he has been found not guilty of as many times as you damn well please.

It's not "as many times as they please" - you don't generally face any penalty until you've been declared guilty in what is functionally your THIRD trial, in Italy (this explains both how Berlusconi managed to stay out of jail so far and why trials take so long here).

[Rogue 9]

Good thing that isn't what's happening, then.

Yes it is. She was found not guilty. If they thought she was guilty, they shouldn't have done that. Bringing her to court again for the same crime (on the same evidence even; if there's new evidence involved in this decision none of the reports have indicated it) after she's been found not guilty is double jeopardy.

[Stark]

As an honest question, are you mentally capable of imagining that the prohibition on 'double jeopardy' (amazingly stupid as it might be) does not exist in this jurisdiction and talking about it as if its relevant just makes you look like an Amerocentric idiot? Do you imagine that everywhere in the world, the American system you are brainwashed to believe is the best exists in some more or less modified form?

I mean Italy doesn't even use a full adversarial system! How much of what Americans know of 'the legal system' is even applicable there, and why should it be in any case?

Sorry I forgot - Americans are gods who should never be tried by filthy other nations and their filthy laws.

[Alyeska]

People on this forum rip the US all the time for not protecting the rights of the defendant in the judicial system.

A case shows up where Italy is tossing Double Jeopardy to the wind, and the same crowd is insulting the US for having rights that protect defendants from unfair trials.

Almost like people just want to bash the US and don't actually have a rational argument to make.

GITMO is evil! Innocent until proven guilty! Right to habeous corpus! Oh, but we want to be able to ignore a not guilty verdict and retry a person as many times as we want, thats totally not corrupt.

Get the fuck over yourselves.

[Stark]

If the American idea of double jeopardy is not a part of the Italian legal system, how can anything that system does 'throw double jeopardy to the wind'?

Is it not implicit here that you expect every legal system to conform to the American model?

[Alyeska]

If the American idea of double jeopardy is not a part of the Italian legal system, how can anything that system does 'throw double jeopardy to the wind'?

Is it not implicit here that you expect every legal system to conform to the American model?

Sections of other legal systems that ignore elements of the American model would trend towards ignoring extradition requests. So Italy ignoring the concept of Double Jeopardy is pretty fucking important in context of actually extraditing Amanda Knox.

Canada doesn't have capital punishment. Thats a pretty big sticking point between the United States and Canada. One that results in refusal to extradite murder suspects.

[Stark]

So you're flat out saying that Italy needs to respect American laws because... stuff... whereas the need for America to respect Italy's laws is zero?

That you honestly can't see what's wrong with this (and perhaps even that you're literally placing America at the top of the INTERNATIONAL LAW PYRAMID) is just amazing. Are those blinkers of yours heavy?

[Alyeska]

So you're flat out saying that Italy needs to respect American laws because... stuff... whereas the need for America to respect Italy's laws is zero?

That you honestly can't see what's wrong with this (and perhaps even that you're literally placing America at the top of the INTERNATIONAL LAW PYRAMID) is just amazing. Are those blinkers of yours heavy?

Acting all high and mighty with an invincible argument. Yeah, "invincible".

Italy can have its own laws. They had their fair shot at Amanda Knox. She was ruled innocent and as a result went home and has attempted to move on with her life. Now Italy wants a second shot. America is entitled to say "You know, that violates our legal right to double jeopardy, we are going to say no".

On the flip side, if an Italian were in the United States and committed the crime of being Gay in the Bible Belt and flew back to Italy before getting caught by the local Red Neck posse, Italy can say "You know, being homosexual isn't a crime in Italy, so go fuck off".

[Stark]

I'm glad you finally got to your argument. :V

Extradition requests are certainly refused for reasons like this, and its fair to say that American judiciary will refuse to extradite in this case... but they also refuse to do so in war crimes trials, so the idea that this is because the Italian system is 'bad' or 'wrong' just because it doesn't agree with your model or expectations is stupid. If you're not saying that then that's fine, but others certainly appear to be and its hilarious.

The outrage that another country doesn't have a specific feature of American law is the joke here. Its like when Americans are astonished that inquisitorial systems exist, or that you can't refuse to answer a question if it might incriminate you in other countries, etc.

Italy bad because AS MANY TIMES AS YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE

[Terralthra]

Technically, Italy is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights. Protocol 4, Article 7:

Article 4 – Right not to be tried or punished twice

• No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.
• The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.
• No derogation from this Article shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

Of course, note the key word "finally." Under Italian law, both prosecution and defense may appeal the verdict, which is not necessarily final until and unless the Court of Cassation rules. If the appeal(s) are granted, it's not a new trial, it's a continuation of the original trial, and does not fall under the double jeopardy article of the ECHR. Stark's ranting about how double jeopardy isn't part of Italian jurisprudence is wrong: it is.

What's interesting is that the Court of Cassation is only supposed to intervene if there are issues with procedure in the trial, which have not been spelled out in the news articles that I can find in English. I'd be interested to see on what grounds they grant the appeal. "The original trial was a circus" doesn't seem like a legal argument.

[Stark]

The point isn't whether it is or not (and why people think it is or isn't), it's that the idea of resorting to American law to judge foreign law is stupid. I've said (repeatedly, if you missed it) that this is an appeals process, something most of the knee-jerk brigade either missed or ignored. Anyway, there's clear provision for cases to be reopened given new evidence, which (I believe as an ignorant outsider) is impossible in America.

Thats why I made the joke about Miami Vice stories where drug lords flee the country before the foolish and lax American legal system. :V

[Rogue 9]

As an honest question, are you mentally capable of imagining that the prohibition on 'double jeopardy' (amazingly stupid as it might be) does not exist in this jurisdiction and talking about it as if its relevant just makes you look like an Amerocentric idiot?

It is relevant, because she's in the United States and would have to be extradited. Further, the amazingly stupid thing is permitting the state the power to retry people until it gets the decision it wants. The American judicial system has its faults, but that isn't one of them.

[Stark]

Does it actually permit that, or is that just what you IMAGINE it permits? Please note terralthra quoting relevant stuff immediately above.

Frankly I'm not sure what's stupider - expecting everyone to follow American law or seriously believing the universe is divided into 'double jeopardy "protection"' and 'get tried 1000000 times over and over by the EV0L STATE to crush freedom'.

Maybe you should ban appeals. :V

[Gaidin]

Why are they doing the retrial? Does retrial mean something different in Italy? I've seen hints of that here. Well, more like blunt force trauma. But whatever. Is there new evidence or did the courts fuck up? I haven't been able to find much past RETRIAL in my searches.

When the words 'not guilty' come up with no context, that usually leads to assumption of Double Jeopardy at least in concept, whether its legal or not.

[Stark]

That's whats interesting. Since the original trial was so poorly done, you'd hope the appeals court has a pretty good reason to overturn the decision or at least a reason to believe a better result is possible.

And assumptions of double jeopardy are pretty much so funny they are making my entire day right now. :V

[Gaidin]

Well double jeopardy is what they are, by definition, no matter how hilarious you find it or not. No matter how legitimate you find it or not. I mean, same crime, regardless of new evidence. Double Jeopardy. One retrial is just more "conceptually" more legitimate than the other.

[Stark]

Just the term double jeopardy (ie, from a game show) is hilarious. And yes, the very idea you can't be retried for something is stupid and I think this element of the American legal system leads to unintentional consequences for justice and those who use and work in the system. Of course, its easier to just say OMG NOT LIKE ON LAW AND ORDER for some people.